Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order dated 28.03.2023. There was a delay of 729 days in filing the appeal, attributed to the Covid-19 pandemic, the death of the assessee's counsel, and the assessee's own severe illness. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 17,02,441/- to the assessee's income.
Held
The tribunal condoned the delay considering the reasons provided were bonafide and unintentional. The tribunal observed that notices were issued during the Covid-19 period, and a subsequent notice could not be complied with due to medical reasons and the death of the previous tax consultant. Therefore, the case was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is justifiable and if the case should be remanded for a fresh decision due to procedural lapses during the pandemic.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH “SMC”, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ms. Rupa Abhay Vyas ITO Ward 5(3), C/o. Mahalaxmi Travels, New BSNL RTTC Building, Itwari Road, Near Telegraph Balaji Mandir Road, Vs. Office, Seminary Hills, Nagpur Nagpur Maharashtra-440002. Maharashtra-440006. PAN: AGAPV8795R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Shubham Jain, Ld. Adv. Revenue by : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 27.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18.09.2025 O R D E R
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 28.03.2023, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2013- 14.
At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 729 days in filing of the instant appeal, on which the Assessee by filing a duly sworn affidavit claimed that first notice, for the date of hearing in the appellate proceedings before the Ld. Commissioner, was issued to the Assessee on 13.01.2021 i.e. during the Covid-19 pandemic period. As the Ld. Counsel Shri Ramesh Pandharinath Chandekar who was dealing with the case of the Assessee was severely ill and Ms. Rupa Abhay Vyas owing to his illness, he passed away on 20.03.2021, which resulted into passing the impugned order ex-parte on dated 28.03.2023. Later on the Assessee was diagnosed with a decease called varicose veins in 2023 and since then he is suffering from this decease which caused severe discomfort in walking and therefore undergoing treatment and medication continuously and hence was unable to look after his case or income tax compliances properly. However, on receiving the calls from the Revenue Department for payment of the outstanding demand the Assessee came to know about the impugned order and thereafter tried to reach out to his earlier counsel Shri Ramesh Pandharinath Chandekar, however, got to know about the death of the previous Counsel and therefore immediately filed the appeal on dated 26.05.2025 challenging the impugned order under consideration and therefore the delay may be condoned as the delay was neither intentional nor malafide but based on the bonafide reasons stated above. On the contrary the Ld. DR refuted the claim of the Assessee.
Considering the reasons stated by the Assessee which are supported with duly sworn affidavit, as bonafide, genuine and unintentional, the delay involved is condoned.
Coming to the merits of the case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 29.10.2015 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, has made the addition of Rs.17,02,441/- being 1/3rd share of the Assessee on a long term capital of Rs.51,07,324/- as determined by the AO.
Though the Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording various opportunities, eventually made no compliance and therefore the Ld. Commissioner in the constrained
This Court by giving thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, observed from the impugned order that the maxim notices for the hearings were issued during the Covid-19 period except one notice dated 13.03.2023, which remained to be complied because of the medical reasons stated above and death of the previous tax Consultant of the Assessee. Therefore, for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
Thus the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh accordingly.
The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices to be issued by the Ld. Commissioner and file the relevant submissions/documents in order to substantiate her claim. This Court clarifies that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18.09.2025.